Hello, On Monday 05 February 2007 19:33:17 you wrote: > Ok, I admit that the real problem is that the dependence to latex2html > require tetex-extra and a lot of other packages,and after this > additional dependence, my system require another 100 M disk space. I > don't like installing a lot of packages just because an unnecessary > package. I believe other people may feel the same like me. Why not just > left this an option to user? I mean, in the upstream source, to build > the doc is optional, we can just left this like the original source. as a start I agree to just leave the documentation out. It is less about the size (well, at good days I get > 2MB/s from the net) and users running Debian from a CD are not unlikely to already have the packages locally, than about reducing the complexity. > Another reason, we have an analogue: this package support matlab binding > too. Of course, we will not enable this binding by default. but user can > simply apt-get source and add this support. This is just like the doc > package's situation, we can disable it by default, but easily enable > it. I second that, as long as it is all be well-documented in the README.Debian. > Further more, I think there will be few people want to patch doc > package, writing the right doc is the responsibility of upstream > authors. I consider that's why the upstream authors offer a compiled doc > package for us. In 2004 I had a quick friendly encounter with upstream's Mike Hucka at his poster at the ISMB in Glasgow. He was very supportive of a Debian package and I would not be overly surprised if upstream decided that they'd s/.doc/.tex/ or something similarly free. Someone should ask. Many greetings Steffen
Attachment:
pgpdT4niS3NXn.pgp
Description: PGP signature